Michael Gerson: Rational thoughts on immigration

Related Stories

Just after House Speaker John Boehner affirmed the eventual need for Republicans to embrace immigration reform, a commercial for a carbonated beverage, of all things, demonstrated how difficult that process is likely to be.

Coca-Cola’s Super Bowl ad featured a series of multicultural images set to “America the Beautiful,” sung in seven languages. It turned out to be a national Rorschach test. The immediate reaction of some — myself included — was a lump in the throat. There is something moving about hearing American ideals of brotherhood, reverence and sacrifice praised in other tongues. Some hopes belong to everyone.

The immediate reaction of others — measured by Twitter and talk radio — was that the ad represented an aggressive and divisive multiculturalism and that American national songs should be sung in English (though conservative blogger Erick Erickson smartly noted that “E Pluribus Unum isn’t in English either”). Fox News radio host Todd Sarnes called Coca-Cola “the official soft drink of illegals crossing the border.”

This is already making too much of a Twitter tempest. But it does illustrate a vivid difference in disposition. Some looked at those images and saw an affirmation of the universality of American ideals; others saw a violation of the particularities of American culture, such as the use of English. It doesn’t take the application of electrodes in a psych lab experiment to understand that these are deep, preconscious responses.

As a policy issue, immigration reform is complex, with serious arguments about the economic effects of migrants on the native-born working class and serious questions about more adversarial forms of multiculturalism. But it is this immediate reaction, this habit of mind, that has large political implications.

After decades of participation and reflection, here is my proposal for the most basic truth of politics: Human beings know if they are welcome at a party. For this reason, effective ethnic politics is actually a form of hospitality: Please make yourself at home. “People don’t care how much you know,” said my old boss, the late Jack Kemp, “until they know how much you care.”

Sometimes politics really is this simple. After all the arguments about economics and assimilation, people understand if they are viewed as a threat to the predominant culture. They know if their voice is not welcome in the national chorus. And this does have implications for political philosophy. Kemp passionately believed that human beings, as a rule, are economic and social advantages, the ultimate sources of energy, creativity and wealth. This included anyone, of any background, who happened to be in front of him and smothered by his enthusiastic attentions. Kemp strongly rejected the notion that the current cohort of immigrants are somehow inferior to immigrants past.

I saw how a Republican politician could treat immigrants and minorities as if they were valued national possessions. And I saw Kemp’s frustration with the direction of his party. “We sound like we don’t want immigration,” he said. “We sound like we don’t want black people to vote for us. What are we going to do — meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?”

It is not reasonable to expect Boehner to buck much of his conference without broader reinforcement. This will take donors and business groups willing to support pro-reform House and Senate candidates against tea party challenges — reducing the political risks of rationality. And it will require a presidential candidate in 2016 who offers something more than walls topped in barbed wire and self-deportation. Some optimistic, inclusive leadership would be helpful cover for many Republicans who wish to do the right thing, the politically smart thing, on immigration reform.

But the most important change that is needed is the hardest to achieve: A genuine welcome to the party. And an honest prayer: Dios derramo su gracia sobre ti.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

What we DON'T need is another confusing boondoggle of a mess passed off as a "Comprehensive Immigration Bill". "Comprehensive" in DC means incomprehensible. Kind of like Obamacare. We don't need a 1500 page bill (just for starters).

The one positive certainty if the republicans pass ANY immigration reform: it will not change one immigrant vote for a republican. So with that in mind, passing any legislation by the republican party will certainly make them the minority political party in the house after 2014. Reason: the conservative's who didn't vote for Romney (estimated to be 3 to 4 million) will not vote again for the local representative or senator who caves on immigration, in fact, the conservative republican turnout will be considerably less than it was for president. With the current administration NOT following federal statutes by criminalizing the illegal alien when they are caught, more illegals have been and will continue to come into this country knowing that they will be able to procure federal support with virtually zero problems due to the current administrations lessening of federal law.
Is that the plan of the democrat's to force a resolution from the republicans to have some sort of immigration reform this year, before the mid-term elections? I bet so. You see, the republicans are the party of reaction at this point. They have no leadership; they have no vision. At least with Newt Gingrich's "Contract for America" there was a plan and a defined vision, like it or not. Today, the republican part have been fighting a war with the democrats and unfortunately the democrats have always had a vision, (primarily to make the US a socialist state) and they have held themselves to it. The republicans have been hoodwinked primarily by presidential candidates who were picked by the republican elite and consequently have not listened to the upstart TEA Party which does not have the strong political base as does the republican party. The TEA Party have no money, they have no organization and are constantly bombarded by both the republican establishment and the IRS. You see, the democrats are more fearful of the TEA Party than they are of the republicans because the TEA Party is a grassroots organization, even though they have no power, they have a vision and a plan. The republican party is a party of "Oh, how can we get a long with those democrats" mentality. The republicans are the true centrists in politics. It has been a bunch of years since the democrat party were centrists, probably as far back as Scoop Jackson. But now that the entire democrat party has gone completely left and the elite republican party have gone centrist and that leaves the whole right to whomever wants it.

Politics in general has been heading left since the days of Woodrow Wilson and FDR; it has been in the last 20 years with the Bush's and Clinton and now Obama that have elevated (a bad word I know) to the level of socialism, and with that incremental change, eventually complete communism. In the book "Dupes," there has been a concerted effort since before the Russian Revolution in 1917, to change this country into a progressive socilist state, and guess who started that: Teddy Roosevelt.

illegal immigrants. In the 1970's, illigals were arrested where they were found and taken to jail to await prosecution and deportation. They were each entitled to an attorney and each day in jail cost taxpayers around $70 per day for each illegal. Transportation was expensive, prosecution was expensive. When the illegal was taken back to the border there was nothing stopping them from illegally crossing again and again.
These people were living in abject poverty south of the border and had nothing to lose. They were grateful for the meals they were served in jail. By the 1980's, costs had caused illegals to be ignored if found.
So, where is the money to come from to go back to detecting, arresting, and prosecuting illegals?